More flavors of DesktopX Pro requested?
Thursday, November 20, 2003 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Few products have gotten off to such an intense start. We're getting a lot of email from users who want DesktopX Pro but can't afford $499.
Their uses vary but boil down to this:
1) Being able to use for internal apps
2) Sending a "gadget" to a friend or family4 member.
3) Making widgets for personal use where they just want to run something they make on their various home machines and not worry whether they have DesktopX on all of them or not.
These are 3 types of people that we are not currently targeting with DesktopX Pro.
But what if we did this:
Have DesktopX Pro be $129 instead and put into the license that programs created with it may not be sold or used for marketing purposes?
So when you click to get DesktopX Pro, you would be presented with two options:
a) I will not be selling applications created with DesktopX Pro or using them for marketing purposes: $129
I will be using DesktopX Pro for commercial development: $499
The question is, would $129 still be "too high" for power users? Much less than $129 and it's really not worth it and gets too close to the Object Desktop price.
What do you think?
 |
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
FChestnut
Reply #22 Thursday, November 20, 2003 3:41 PM
Reply #22 Thursday, November 20, 2003 3:41 PM
499 for comercial dev is good.
129 or around for non-commercial - meaning you can't SELL widget and maybe a mandatory note in the About dialog or something like that is good for me too. (As long as it is not... like a note on the fish on desktop right now).
Also, an alternative could also be that source of the exe should be available with the free widget you want to give to people (kind of like an open source license solution)
A price to pass from non-com to com... also good !
And a little reduction for already OD customers (though 50$ may be a little too low for that)... good to me !
I understand all the arguments of the 500 defenders, the problem is not there.
I'm a professional dev although it is not in this type of work, a non-commercial license could help someone like me to learn, share and go further in this field... Even if I stay with the non-commercial in the long term.
Being a pro dev doesn't also mean that... everyone can afford the 500$ now or even later in worst case.
It's an investment ! And it can depends on what you want to do with the investment.
My 2c
129 or around for non-commercial - meaning you can't SELL widget and maybe a mandatory note in the About dialog or something like that is good for me too. (As long as it is not... like a note on the fish on desktop right now).
Also, an alternative could also be that source of the exe should be available with the free widget you want to give to people (kind of like an open source license solution)
A price to pass from non-com to com... also good !
And a little reduction for already OD customers (though 50$ may be a little too low for that)... good to me !
I understand all the arguments of the 500 defenders, the problem is not there.
I'm a professional dev although it is not in this type of work, a non-commercial license could help someone like me to learn, share and go further in this field... Even if I stay with the non-commercial in the long term.
Being a pro dev doesn't also mean that... everyone can afford the 500$ now or even later in worst case.
It's an investment ! And it can depends on what you want to do with the investment.
My 2c
Lilind10
Reply #23 Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:04 PM
Reply #23 Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:04 PM
I think that those prices are just about right.
Raithe brings up a good point, a lot of people buy photoshop for 600 dollars while paint shop is just 100. also there is the free alternative GIMP. Why do these people buy photoshop? Probably because it is like "I have Photoshop, the proffessional program used by graphics designers". True, Photoshop is a great program, but paint shop comes really good to recreating it at a consumer friendly price
DesktopX may become a big thing, not just a little program that a few people have. It may become a "verb" like photoshop. "I photoshopped this pic"
The $499 price tag is completely acceptable for the commercial version of Desktop X.
The $129 price tag of the non-commercial is also very reasonable. Anything less than that, with the function of creating EXE's would be too low. If I really wanted the function of EXE's, I would definitely buy this, but being 11 years old means that this is a little high, and I don't really want to make EXE's out of Desktop X stuff.
In conclusion, the prices for both the commercial and non-commercial versions would be fine with me and hopefully many others.
-The 11 yesr old-
Raithe brings up a good point, a lot of people buy photoshop for 600 dollars while paint shop is just 100. also there is the free alternative GIMP. Why do these people buy photoshop? Probably because it is like "I have Photoshop, the proffessional program used by graphics designers". True, Photoshop is a great program, but paint shop comes really good to recreating it at a consumer friendly price
DesktopX may become a big thing, not just a little program that a few people have. It may become a "verb" like photoshop. "I photoshopped this pic"
The $499 price tag is completely acceptable for the commercial version of Desktop X.
The $129 price tag of the non-commercial is also very reasonable. Anything less than that, with the function of creating EXE's would be too low. If I really wanted the function of EXE's, I would definitely buy this, but being 11 years old means that this is a little high, and I don't really want to make EXE's out of Desktop X stuff.
In conclusion, the prices for both the commercial and non-commercial versions would be fine with me and hopefully many others.
-The 11 yesr old-
NickOHara
Reply #24 Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:41 PM
Reply #24 Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:41 PM
I think the $129 is very tempting and reasonable, and a slightly lower price for OD-subscribers would be even better. 
CloneDNA
Reply #25 Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:01 PM
Reply #25 Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:01 PM
$499 is way to Microsoft in price. $129 is more inline with reality. $99 would be a great number and one that will grow Desktop X Pro to its highest level. For $129 or $99 I would sign a non commercial clause, but feel you are shortchanging everyone and yourselves at $499 price
CAClark
Reply #26 Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:02 PM
Reply #26 Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:02 PM
Bakerstreet, with all due respect, 'neat' isn't missing the point. Surely if i want to have a mail checker, a clock, and a net meter, having a small exe is more efficient than having the whole of DX running? While I couldn't state tht as fact, I would like to think so. So take a step back, there's more to it then the end result you visibly see on your desktop.
As a CG Artist, memory is precious, and while I love Stardocks apps, too many runnign at once does see the old memory hit go quite high.
Cheers
As a CG Artist, memory is precious, and while I love Stardocks apps, too many runnign at once does see the old memory hit go quite high.
Cheers
scratch_pentagon
Reply #27 Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:37 PM
Reply #27 Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:37 PM
PlayTime: if their computers are too slow to run DesktopX, they'll be too slow to run the standalone exe. The standalone exe is DesktopX AND the object all in one. That's all it is. I don't know where people got the idea that they would be any less resource intensive.
Alberto
Reply #28 Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:59 PM
Reply #28 Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:59 PM
It is slightly less resourse intensive in that the executable itself is smaller, there are no GUI dialoge, no wallpaper, desktop, workarea, systray code etc at runtime. That said, usually graphics take most of the overall object size in RAM.
[brazen weep]
Reply #29 Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:16 PM
Reply #29 Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:16 PM
Just one more guy's opinion here. I'm a Developer for an international franchisor. I write the software that we sell to many of the franchisees who use it to run their day-to-day operations. It would be easy for me to justify spending $499 of the company's money for the ability to say, use DX Pro to create an interactive tutorial for the software we sell. Using DX Pro, I could create the tutorial and have it interact with my program and my users because of DXScript. And the ability to include it all in an EXE for our users to run is simple and smart. Sure, I could do this with tons of other DEMO APP and TUTORIAL creators, but with DX Pro I get so much more (like alphablending and vb scripting).
At home, I'm a Object Desktop subscriber and a DX fan for my home machine. I also enjoy creating unique objects to share with other users on wincustomize. Would I personally pay $499 for DX Pro - no, for I don't need it for commercial development. Is it worth $129 for me (again, personally)? No, not when I think about my OD subscription. I think the idea of $55 to $75 for non-commercial OD subscribers is fair. A lot of us hard-working people don't have that much cash to through around for software when it comes to home use. My OD subscription is already a luxury for me, as it is for most home users I'm sure. I'd have to spread a-hell-of-a-lot of joy creating .EXE's at home to make DX Pro worth anything more than $75 more for me, a home user and OD subscriber.
I hope this reads as well as it does in my mind.
Thanks for listeni-- err, reading.
I'm a Developer for an international franchisor. I write the software that we sell to many of the franchisees who use it to run their day-to-day operations. It would be easy for me to justify spending $499 of the company's money for the ability to say, use DX Pro to create an interactive tutorial for the software we sell. Using DX Pro, I could create the tutorial and have it interact with my program and my users because of DXScript. And the ability to include it all in an EXE for our users to run is simple and smart. Sure, I could do this with tons of other DEMO APP and TUTORIAL creators, but with DX Pro I get so much more (like alphablending and vb scripting).At home, I'm a Object Desktop subscriber and a DX fan for my home machine. I also enjoy creating unique objects to share with other users on wincustomize. Would I personally pay $499 for DX Pro - no, for I don't need it for commercial development. Is it worth $129 for me (again, personally)? No, not when I think about my OD subscription. I think the idea of $55 to $75 for non-commercial OD subscribers is fair. A lot of us hard-working people don't have that much cash to through around for software when it comes to home use. My OD subscription is already a luxury for me, as it is for most home users I'm sure. I'd have to spread a-hell-of-a-lot of joy creating .EXE's at home to make DX Pro worth anything more than $75 more for me, a home user and OD subscriber.
I hope this reads as well as it does in my mind.
Thanks for listeni-- err, reading.
bakerstreet
Reply #30 Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:26 PM
Reply #30 Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:26 PM
"Surely if i want to have a mail checker, a clock, and a net meter, having a small exe is more efficient than having the whole of DX running?"
CAClark: Actually, I would have to disagree, because it isn't one exe, there are 3 executables in your example. With such 'themes' each would be handled independently by the OS.
DesktopX objects aren't natively standalone, so you have to assume each executable is going to have a hunk of DesktoX in it to enable it to run. This is no big deal in a theme, because all the objects rely on the same 'mother' program. In the case of your example above, though, each item would have included it's own hunk of DesktopX. Instead of several objects relying on one background app, you have several objects each running with their own, redundant support code.
Frogboy will correct me on this if I am wrong, but I can't see how else it could be done, at least until the next version that relies upon DesktopX already being installed. That is why I said, if people are going to use more than a couple of these standalones, they would be much better off just using DesktopX, and have the added functionality to boot.
**
FYI: the conversation moved to the messageboard about a 4th of the way through. It might catch everyone up if they shifted there. Frogboy knows what he is doing, and while I think his original plan was best, his plan-of-action seems like a good one nonetheless.
CAClark: Actually, I would have to disagree, because it isn't one exe, there are 3 executables in your example. With such 'themes' each would be handled independently by the OS.
DesktopX objects aren't natively standalone, so you have to assume each executable is going to have a hunk of DesktoX in it to enable it to run. This is no big deal in a theme, because all the objects rely on the same 'mother' program. In the case of your example above, though, each item would have included it's own hunk of DesktopX. Instead of several objects relying on one background app, you have several objects each running with their own, redundant support code.
Frogboy will correct me on this if I am wrong, but I can't see how else it could be done, at least until the next version that relies upon DesktopX already being installed. That is why I said, if people are going to use more than a couple of these standalones, they would be much better off just using DesktopX, and have the added functionality to boot.
**
FYI: the conversation moved to the messageboard about a 4th of the way through. It might catch everyone up if they shifted there. Frogboy knows what he is doing, and while I think his original plan was best, his plan-of-action seems like a good one nonetheless.
thehighlander
Reply #31 Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:46 PM
Reply #31 Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:46 PM
I love my toys, but I couldn't justify spending $500 on an app unless I was making my living with it. But I also spend $100 on games or toys when I want. I just spent $100 on PSP8 because my goal is to become a skinner, and the expense was worth it. I don't have money to throw around, but if I buy a program I really like, I quit worrying about how much I'm using it, it's enough that it's there when I do want it. So, I might not have a whole lot of people that would use my widgets a lot, but I have only one person that would even consider using DesktopX. That being the case, the $100 upgrade from ObjectDesktop is something I would definitely do, as soon as I had the bucks. I've only been into this community since April, but I couldn't even begin to think about using an "ordinary" pc anymore, they look wierd when I work on someone elses.
paxx
Reply #32 Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:48 PM
Reply #32 Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:48 PM
I don't know. I've been doing some thinking about this.I can't see paying 499 for a corporate use, and neither can I see paying 129 for home use. Let me explain.
With the Pro version, you can only make EXE objects, not themes. One could not go after companies and sell them corporate branded desktops, you'd need the Enterprise version for that, and that well is just way too much up there in the price list. To hope getting your money back from the 499$ expense, you'd have to basically sell a whole lot of 3 to 4$ clocks and desktop calendars... The price of DX Pro has been compared to the price of Flash. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't compare. I can justify the expense of Flash in a heartbeat. I pay it back in just one single cotract, which I could only hope to do with DX Pro if I could see a whole desktop suite to a company, which I can't. No, to me, I can't see the 499$ corporate version being worth the risk for a huge loss.
As for a 129$ home version, again, I think it's a lot of money for just being able to make EXE's and send widgets to friends and families. Personnaly, I don't spend 100$ per month in games. I don't even spend that per year. I think Object Desktop is well worth it for 50$, no doubt about that. But if I balance that with 129$ for just turning an object into an EXE? No, can't see it either. But I'm sure there are companies ready to buy the 499$ version, I just can't think of any I know. As there probably will be a few people ready to buy the 129$ home version. BUt how many?
I guess time will tell.
With the Pro version, you can only make EXE objects, not themes. One could not go after companies and sell them corporate branded desktops, you'd need the Enterprise version for that, and that well is just way too much up there in the price list. To hope getting your money back from the 499$ expense, you'd have to basically sell a whole lot of 3 to 4$ clocks and desktop calendars... The price of DX Pro has been compared to the price of Flash. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't compare. I can justify the expense of Flash in a heartbeat. I pay it back in just one single cotract, which I could only hope to do with DX Pro if I could see a whole desktop suite to a company, which I can't. No, to me, I can't see the 499$ corporate version being worth the risk for a huge loss.
As for a 129$ home version, again, I think it's a lot of money for just being able to make EXE's and send widgets to friends and families. Personnaly, I don't spend 100$ per month in games. I don't even spend that per year. I think Object Desktop is well worth it for 50$, no doubt about that. But if I balance that with 129$ for just turning an object into an EXE? No, can't see it either. But I'm sure there are companies ready to buy the 499$ version, I just can't think of any I know. As there probably will be a few people ready to buy the 129$ home version. BUt how many?
I guess time will tell.
XX
Reply #33 Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:33 PM
Reply #33 Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:33 PM
Hmm a idea i had posted in msgboard...
A 129 version could make exes, but all those exes from 129$ version could warn that it was made from non-commerical version of desktopx pro ONCE. (Once per exe that is)
That will easily block commerical sellers from selling those exes from 129$ version and dodging the extra 350 or so price. Clicking 'OK' once is not inconvient for regular customers.
A 129 version could make exes, but all those exes from 129$ version could warn that it was made from non-commerical version of desktopx pro ONCE. (Once per exe that is)
That will easily block commerical sellers from selling those exes from 129$ version and dodging the extra 350 or so price. Clicking 'OK' once is not inconvient for regular customers.
karb0n
Reply #34 Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:45 PM
Reply #34 Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:45 PM
i admit its a great idea making stand-alone exe's, but is it worth the extra money for one feature?
kthxbye
Reply #35 Friday, November 21, 2003 1:30 AM
Reply #35 Friday, November 21, 2003 1:30 AM
To everybody that thinks $499 is expensive for a corporate level product, you need to think about the -real- capabilities of what DesktopX can do, when you can export files as .exe's. It goes beyond little clocks, and calenders and such.
Suddenly, Stardock & Desktop X finds itself in a whole new ballpark. With the capablities of Desktop X and .exe's the doors are opened for things (possibly, from what I've gathered from DX's current, and upcoming capabilities,) as autorun programs for CDs, product demo apps, product training apps, etc - as well as rapid application development (to an extent?)
Compare the prices of some of the industry leaders in these areas already:
Demoshield 7.5: $699
Flash MX Pro 2004: $699
I don't know if DX is capable of more 'complicated' apps/designs yet (Lack of experience with it for me...) but when I think of the .exe export, these are the first things I start thinking of for professional use. Companies /always/ want an eye-catching autorun solution, for instance - and DX is great with the eye candy.
(Of course, I could totally be off base and over-estimating DX's capabilities as well... by now I'm sure I've mentioned enough that I haven't kept up with it. 1.9b was my last version.
)
Suddenly, Stardock & Desktop X finds itself in a whole new ballpark. With the capablities of Desktop X and .exe's the doors are opened for things (possibly, from what I've gathered from DX's current, and upcoming capabilities,) as autorun programs for CDs, product demo apps, product training apps, etc - as well as rapid application development (to an extent?)
Compare the prices of some of the industry leaders in these areas already:
Demoshield 7.5: $699
Flash MX Pro 2004: $699
I don't know if DX is capable of more 'complicated' apps/designs yet (Lack of experience with it for me...) but when I think of the .exe export, these are the first things I start thinking of for professional use. Companies /always/ want an eye-catching autorun solution, for instance - and DX is great with the eye candy.
(Of course, I could totally be off base and over-estimating DX's capabilities as well... by now I'm sure I've mentioned enough that I haven't kept up with it. 1.9b was my last version.
)
Namsiem
Reply #36 Friday, November 21, 2003 2:12 AM
Reply #36 Friday, November 21, 2003 2:12 AM
I think that FChestnut has something.
The purpose of the Comersial version is to protect the code/intelectual property and make money. Where as the personal version is to get something to friends and family without care of sharing the code. That should be the insentive to upgrade.
A few questions though?
What is the averge size of the executables? (Depending on graphics of course)
Is the memory shared with other stardock programs?
What is the memory usage on small objects?
What about Upgrades?
How will it work whatn version 3.0 is released?
I like the new Pricing Ideas though.
$499,$129,$99
My .02
Cmeisman
The purpose of the Comersial version is to protect the code/intelectual property and make money. Where as the personal version is to get something to friends and family without care of sharing the code. That should be the insentive to upgrade.
A few questions though?
What is the averge size of the executables? (Depending on graphics of course)
Is the memory shared with other stardock programs?
What is the memory usage on small objects?
What about Upgrades?
How will it work whatn version 3.0 is released?
I like the new Pricing Ideas though.
$499,$129,$99
My .02
Cmeisman
Alberto
Reply #37 Friday, November 21, 2003 4:19 AM
Reply #37 Friday, November 21, 2003 4:19 AM
I just exported just the default blue object as exe: 300Kb file size and around 1Meg in RAM. That's the stand alone Exe footprint, so very very low. The only "overhead" is the very core code and graphic renderer, plus plugins (differently from DX, there are no hooks, wallpaper, workarea, systray management components and such). The extra RAM and size is for graphics and other plugins.
Exes are totally independent by the current DX version. If you compile them with version x.y, that'll be the code they'll use at runtime, that is statically linked, so there will never be issues with installing runtimes in system32 and such. Also, this means the objects will always run as they are meant to.
You can have a widget made with version x.y run with another widget made with version z.w.
It makes to reason to try and mess with memory or libraries sharing, it already very light like this and instance isolation makes EXEs very solid and easily distributable (i.e. no installation needed, no need to touch system32 and registry).
Exes are totally independent by the current DX version. If you compile them with version x.y, that'll be the code they'll use at runtime, that is statically linked, so there will never be issues with installing runtimes in system32 and such. Also, this means the objects will always run as they are meant to.
You can have a widget made with version x.y run with another widget made with version z.w.
It makes to reason to try and mess with memory or libraries sharing, it already very light like this and instance isolation makes EXEs very solid and easily distributable (i.e. no installation needed, no need to touch system32 and registry).
paxx
Reply #38 Friday, November 21, 2003 10:15 AM
kthxbye:
Suddenly, Stardock & Desktop X finds itself in a whole new ballpark. With
the capablities of Desktop X and .exe's the doors are opened for things
(possibly, from what I've gathered from DX's current, and upcoming
capabilities,) as autorun programs for CDs, product demo apps, product training
apps, etc - as well as rapid application development (to an extent?)
I may be way off here. Either that or you are. Anyway, I can't
imagine using DX for the applications you described above. Some other
products make those jobs much easier. AFAIK, Desktop X is a desktop
enhancement software, not a training tool, not a slideshow tool, or anything the
likes. It's made to create objects, and have those objects interact with each
other in odre to accomplish nice desktop finctions. IE: shortcuts, menus,
clocks, calendars, system meters, etc.I'm not saying it would be impossible to
make a tutorial or a product demo using Destop X objects, but man, it would be
hell of a lot of work compared to other existing tools.
Reply #38 Friday, November 21, 2003 10:15 AM
kthxbye:
Suddenly, Stardock & Desktop X finds itself in a whole new ballpark. With
the capablities of Desktop X and .exe's the doors are opened for things
(possibly, from what I've gathered from DX's current, and upcoming
capabilities,) as autorun programs for CDs, product demo apps, product training
apps, etc - as well as rapid application development (to an extent?)
I may be way off here. Either that or you are.
Anyway, I can't imagine using DX for the applications you described above. Some other
products make those jobs much easier. AFAIK, Desktop X is a desktop
enhancement software, not a training tool, not a slideshow tool, or anything the
likes. It's made to create objects, and have those objects interact with each
other in odre to accomplish nice desktop finctions. IE: shortcuts, menus,
clocks, calendars, system meters, etc.I'm not saying it would be impossible to
make a tutorial or a product demo using Destop X objects, but man, it would be
hell of a lot of work compared to other existing tools.
karb0n
Reply #39 Friday, November 21, 2003 10:42 AM
Reply #39 Friday, November 21, 2003 10:42 AM
you keep comparing prices but those software do alot more than exporting to exe. it is a great idea, but $470 for exporting to exe? thats like buying photoshop because it has a better zoom function than paint shop pro.
kthxbye
Reply #40 Friday, November 21, 2003 11:52 AM
Reply #40 Friday, November 21, 2003 11:52 AM
Paxx: I probably am, yeah, but with support for such things as com objects, VBSCript, JScript and (Eventually, according to SD,) C# and XAML - /EVEN THOUGH/ it is meant as desktop ehancement software, it could be used ideally, for much, much more.
Frogboy (I do believe it was him,) already said they made a slideshow .exe with it - so even if it wasn't /meant/ was that originally, it's shown it's quite capable at it. As soon as you put robust scripting support into something, it becomes harder and harder to say "Oh, it's just for 'x'." Especially if it can make .exe's.
Karb0n: Actually, that /is/ pretty much all that demoshield does. You give it the content you want/need using scripts/widgets/etc. and it makes an .exe for you.
A lot of companies who buy Macromedia Flash also sometimes buy it for specific reasons only. It wasn't the best example, perhaps - but there -are- people who buy Flash with doing say, a tutorial, or demo, in mind, who never even touch its other capabilities. It balances out - Desktop X has that whole 'desktop enhancement' capability too.
(I could argue your last point too - because if Photoshop's zoom feature had feature 'x' and I /needed/ that feature, than the cost of Photoshop would be easily justified, if PSP didn't support it. Hell, I /did/ buy Photoshop, as a home user mind you, over PSP simply because it's the one I'm most comfortable with.)
Frogboy (I do believe it was him,) already said they made a slideshow .exe with it - so even if it wasn't /meant/ was that originally, it's shown it's quite capable at it. As soon as you put robust scripting support into something, it becomes harder and harder to say "Oh, it's just for 'x'." Especially if it can make .exe's.
Karb0n: Actually, that /is/ pretty much all that demoshield does. You give it the content you want/need using scripts/widgets/etc. and it makes an .exe for you.
A lot of companies who buy Macromedia Flash also sometimes buy it for specific reasons only. It wasn't the best example, perhaps - but there -are- people who buy Flash with doing say, a tutorial, or demo, in mind, who never even touch its other capabilities. It balances out - Desktop X has that whole 'desktop enhancement' capability too.
(I could argue your last point too - because if Photoshop's zoom feature had feature 'x' and I /needed/ that feature, than the cost of Photoshop would be easily justified, if PSP didn't support it. Hell, I /did/ buy Photoshop, as a home user mind you, over PSP simply because it's the one I'm most comfortable with.)
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Thursday, November 20, 2003 3:32 PM
I don't see any reason to have the PRO version since I'm fine with Desktop X as an application and I don't see any need for creating standalone exe's. In my family I'm the only one that like computers and skinning.
Also, if you let users to give away exe's to everyone there wouldn't be new users and no new ObjectDesktop subscriptions. I think those users that want a smaller price don't need that power, unless they’re small business or something like that. This is just my opinion.